RPG Classifications or "What the hell is an RPG?"

[Sephiroth]

to be clear the only reason i call Zelda an Adventure game even if it's exceptionally close to being an RPG is because it said "Adventure" on the original boxes for the NES... back in the 80's NES days the boxes had the games categories printed on them, as well as with their descriptions in Nintendo Power also being labeled with a specific category... the Nintendo Power Strategy guides were also seperated by these categories... in all these instances it was categorized as Adventure, so i figure Miyamoto decided it was Adventure, and so i go with that...
this is as i recall it from the 80's, i was a teenager then so there's a chance i could be misremembering something...

Now the Master Question: How many RPGs did exist when Zelda 1 came out? I am not saying they did not exist but they were just born at that time. And i am still absolutely convinced that it was either Miyamoto-san or Aonuma-san who once called Zelda an RPG. Not that it would mean I or you have to as they decide Zelda and not the definition of an RPG but I still want to mention it from time to time.

• For me a Role-Playing Game has to put you into a situation that at least vaguely looks like a plot; therefore stuff like Final Fantasy I and even Zelda with their marginal stories at time (except for stuff like e.g. Twilight Princess and Breath of the Wild) still count. And even if you have an avatar that you can project yourself into, then at least some other characters should be able to give you the feeling you are in a living world. Pokémon has this weird phenomenon that it fulfills a lot of other criteria in RPGs for me but it magically succeeds in having a side plot (evil organization) without having a main plot. The main plot is supposed to be the "awesome adventure and bond you share with your Pokémon" but it simply lacks being written down and that "it plays itself as such" is just not enough for me. I somehow need to be immersed and feel that what I am playing is really a thing that has some relevance (that does not need to be a world saving plot or anything but I want it to at least have some "the character does this as an important part in his life" focus). Sadly I don't feel this for Pokémon, one of my most favourite franchises at all. What happens is a part of his life. But it just does not feel like plot. I mean, I am glad that at least the evil organization stuff is in there. I just wish the main goal woud not be stuff like "leave home to become a Pokémo trainer ... yeah ... okay, now you have reached the Pokémon league, cool". If the evil organization plot would just be more present. BUT if I remember correctly they mixed it a bit better in newer Pokémon games. Sadly it just feels like such a barebones concept manifested as exactly that - except for a few situations. This is were even the shadow of a plot is still more for me than such a thing and why Pokémon will always be either its own thing with RPG elements adopted for me or at least "its own kind of RPG" but that is me being very generous because of the entire plot thing. I actually think Pokémon as its own thing is an even nicer way of viewing it.

• There still needs to be a significant amount of Gameplay. Cinematic Movie Games barely have any Gameplay; they merely qualify as games because you can do the least amount of things possible to still call it a "game".
• It has to feature major gameplay elements that reappear in the game all the time, such as e.g.: Combat in various forms, Crafting in various forms, Exploration in various forms. It does not need to fulfill all of it necessarily and also not always in the same form. Same goes for the possibility of your avatar to grow. Whether it is a Level Up System with EXP, HP, MP, whether it is Equipment, whether it is collecting Heart Containers and various weapons, et cetera - all of that does not have the same form as mentioned. And as said, depending on what the game looks like, I might even be able to look over the lack or complete non-existance of some of these things as long as some of the more relevant factors still exist such as the immersion of your avatar combined with the story. That alone without too much Gameplay ends up being a cinematic movie game but at least the attempt to do some gameplay in form of the above mentioned examples is a great difference already. BUT these things can be presented in a very very different way than the ways that I normally see used in RPGs. The new Tomb Raiders for example have EXP, combating, exploration, blablabla. And they have a story. Somewhat. But the presentation of them makes the difference for me again, it just makes it "feel" so different and that is always an important factor for me. Does it feel like an RPG to me? Now I thought Horizon Zero Dawn - I have not played it yet - might be another RPG but if it is really a lot like Tomb Raider, and I know that a lot of it is like it; then I might change my view about it.
• The rest becomes more and more optional.

EDIT: Now after having Horizon Zero Dawn I can definitely say it is an Action RPG and not just a normal survival game.

[Spuuky]

Now the Master Question: How many RPGs did exist when Zelda 1 came out? I am not saying they did not exist but they were just born at that time.

Ultima was already up to game #4 before the Legend of Zelda came out.